Q. Both McEnroe and Agassi said in the World Team Tennis match this July that tennis right now at the top, men’s tennis is the toughest ever. Do you think you four guys are the toughest maybe in history in terms of competing against each other and winning events?

ROGER FEDERER: I’d say no, but I don’t know. Just because you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and Agassi, I don’t know who else. Those guys weren’t good or what? Do you know what I mean?

You look back, further back, 20 years, and you have the Connors and the Lendls. Those weren’t good either? I mean, I don’t know. So for me I think that’s respectful. It’s just different times and definitely more athletic, there’s no doubt about that. But then again we don’t play doubles. We don’t play mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it’s more taxing, but we do play less best‑of‑five set tennis than they used to play. You can’t compare really.

but we have somewhat of a golden era right now. I feel that truly. It’s nice to see Andy making his move at the Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It’s definitely good times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It’s very interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been greater than right now. There’s no doubt about that.

Q. Both McEnroe and Agassi said in the World Team Tennis match this July that tennis right now at the top, men’s tennis is the toughest ever. Do you think you four guys are the toughest maybe in history in terms of competing against each other and winning events?

ROGER FEDERER: I’d say no, but I don’t know. Just because you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and Agassi, I don’t know who else. Those guys weren’t good or what? Do you know what I mean?

You look back, further back, 20 years, and you have the Connors and the Lendls. Those weren’t good either? I mean, I don’t know. So for me I think that’s respectful. It’s just different times and definitely more athletic, there’s no doubt about that. But then again we don’t play doubles. We don’t play mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it’s more taxing, but we do play less best‑of‑five set tennis than they used to play. You can’t compare really.

but we have somewhat of a golden era right now. I feel that truly. It’s nice to see Andy making his move at the Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It’s definitely good times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It’s very interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been greater than right now. There’s no doubt about that.

"I don't feel better than anyone, because we need past champions to pave the way for our generation and we have become very professional," he said.

"They have led the way and inspired myself and other players to chase the big records out there.

"Back in the day they weren't doing that, they were just playing to play tennis. Things have changed dramatically with the press reminding us 'you should do this and win that and you'll be considered the greatest of all time'.

Q. Both McEnroe and Agassi said in the World Team Tennis match this July that tennis right now at the top, men’s tennis is the toughest ever. Do you think you four guys are the toughest maybe in history in terms of competing against each other and winning events?

ROGER FEDERER: I’d say no, but I don’t know. Just because you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and Agassi, I don’t know who else. Those guys weren’t good or what? Do you know what I mean?

You look back, further back, 20 years, and you have the Connors and the Lendls. Those weren’t good either? I mean, I don’t know. So for me I think that’s respectful. It’s just different times and definitely more athletic, there’s no doubt about that. But then again we don’t play doubles. We don’t play mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it’s more taxing, but we do play less best‑of‑five set tennis than they used to play. You can’t compare really.

but we have somewhat of a golden era right now. I feel that truly. It’s nice to see Andy making his move at the Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It’s definitely good times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It’s very interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been greater than right now. There’s no doubt about that.

Just for the record, Rosewall himself rated Roger number four all-time, behind Hoad, Gonzales, and Laver.
I think that Ken is a little more objective than Fed, because he is no longer concerned about current results.

Just for the record, Rosewall himself rated Roger number four all-time, behind Hoad, Gonzales, and Laver.
I think that Ken is a little more objective than Fed, because he is no longer concerned about current results.

Just for the record, Rosewall himself rated Roger number four all-time, behind Hoad, Gonzales, and Laver.
I think that Ken is a little more objective than Fed, because he is no longer concerned about current results.

We've been over this before.
It was an interview Rosewall gave to an Italian magazine at the 2010 Australian Open, and appeared online in Italian.
I read it in translation.
It was around for about a year, but disappeared about eight months ago.
I saved it on my computer, but my wife and I moved to our new house two months ago, and it was wiped out of the computer.
If you have any doubts about this story, there is an easy way to check it out.
Rosewall is still with us.

Imagine Hoad and Gonzales were in great shape in 63-64 and adding prime Laver and prime Rosewall you have the best quartet ever
Others:
Budge,Crawford,Perry and Vines
Tilden and 3 mousk
Kramer,Sedgman,Gonzo and Trabert in early 50
Borg,Connors,Lendl and Mac early 80
And the early 90 foursome of AA,BB,Sampras and Edberg

WOMEN
2 Williams,Sharapova and Clijsters
Seles,Graf,Hingis and Davenport
Evert,Austin,Navy,Mandlikiva early 80
Gibson,Mo,Marble and Hart in 50
And the toughest ever, in 70:
EVERT,COURT,GOOLAGONG,BJK

So many choices for top level play. Question to ask, can Federer really have a top peak level for one match if you may favor at least one current player over him on many surfaces even when playing his best? To me peak level means no matter what an opponent does, the inevitable loss will happen whether you hit to the forehand, backhand, use junk or anything else.

A good example of this is how Arthur Ashe described Rod Laver from his superb book "Arthur Ashe-Protrait in Motion." "When Laver goes on one of those tears, it's just ridiculous. He starts hitting the lines, and then he starts hitting the lines harder--and harder and harder. NO ONE CAN STOP HIM." The key words to me here is "No one can stop him."

Now if you argue for a year or a few years, I can go with that for Federer. But if you argue that then clearly Tilden, Borg, Gonzalez, Rosewall and a number of others belong in the equation.

Since many players argue for one match for their life they would pick Pancho Gonzalez I think you may have to put him in the peak level for one match category too.

So many choices for top level play. Question to ask, can Federer really have a top peak level for one match if you may favor at least one current player over him on many surfaces even when playing his best? To me peak level means no matter what an opponent does, the inevitable loss will happen whether you hit to the forehand, backhand, use junk or anything else.

A good example of this is how Arthur Ashe described Rod Laver from his superb book "Arthur Ashe-Protrait in Motion." "When Laver goes on one of those tears, it's just ridiculous. He starts hitting the lines, and then he starts hitting the lines harder--and harder and harder. NO ONE CAN STOP HIM." The key words to me here is "No one can stop him."

Now if you argue for a year or a few years, I can go with that for Federer. But if you argue that then clearly Tilden, Borg, Gonzalez, Rosewall and a number of others belong in the equation.

Since many players argue for one match for their life they would pick Pancho Gonzalez I think you may have to put him in the peak level for one match category too.

Click to expand...

The thing is, as you say, there are so many choices for top level of play. There are several champions who have achieved performances that qualify as candidates for "best tennis ever", and you listed some of them. All of them could stop one another, or at least that's what you would expect: you'd expect close matches if the best of the best met at their respective peaks.

The only person who could qualify as a "must-win," no matter who faces him, is someone who can play at a level above everyone else in history. I guess Lew Hoad is a candidate for that level of play.

But the other champions can beat each other. Laver can go on those tears and thoroughly dominate Ashe or other players, but if he meets Pancho Gonzalez at his best, or Ken Rosewall at his best, he might lose. Especially if you vary the surfaces.

Anyway Federer has gone on many such tears. I think when he beat Nadal at Indian Wells this year, Pmac said during one of Federer's best patches that when he gets into that form he's unplayable.

The thing is, as you say, there are so many choices for top level of play. There are several champions who have achieved performances that qualify as candidates for "best tennis ever", and you listed some of them. All of them could stop one another, or at least that's what you would expect: you'd expect close matches if the best of the best met at their respective peaks.

The only person who could qualify as a "must-win," no matter who faces him, is someone who can play at a level above everyone else in history. I guess Lew Hoad is a candidate for that level of play.

But the other champions can beat each other. Laver can go on those tears and thoroughly dominate Ashe or other players, but if he meets Pancho Gonzalez at his best, or Ken Rosewall at his best, he might lose. Especially if you vary the surfaces.

Anyway Federer has gone on many such tears. I think when he beat Nadal at Indian Wells this year, Pmac said during one of Federer's best patches that when he gets into that form he's unplayable.

Click to expand...

It's always tough to figure peak level. Djokovic seemed to be at that level for a long time last year. Murray seems to be able to reach this but as you said it depends on the matchup. Nadal also at times seems unstoppable.

As you wrote it depends on the opponent too. Didn't we have a topic on this one time?

It's always tough to figure peak level. Djokovic seemed to be at that level for a long time last year. Murray seems to be able to reach this but as you said it depends on the matchup. Nadal also at times seems unstoppable.

As you wrote it depends on the opponent too. Didn't we have a topic on this one time?

So many choices for top level play. Question to ask, can Federer really have a top peak level for one match if you may favor at least one current player over him on many surfaces even when playing his best? To me peak level means no matter what an opponent does, the inevitable loss will happen whether you hit to the forehand, backhand, use junk or anything else.

A good example of this is how Arthur Ashe described Rod Laver from his superb book "Arthur Ashe-Protrait in Motion." "When Laver goes on one of those tears, it's just ridiculous. He starts hitting the lines, and then he starts hitting the lines harder--and harder and harder. NO ONE CAN STOP HIM." The key words to me here is "No one can stop him."

Now if you argue for a year or a few years, I can go with that for Federer. But if you argue that then clearly Tilden, Borg, Gonzalez, Rosewall and a number of others belong in the equation.

Since many players argue for one match for their life they would pick Pancho Gonzalez I think you may have to put him in the peak level for one match category too.

Click to expand...

That is a good post questioning in a clear way all those who still think Fed has a single chance of being considered GOAT
There are two big IFS dominating his whole career
1/What IF he had a good record against main career rivaç
2/What IF he played in a tough era instead a very weak one
Y
So many IF mark his whole career....

That is a good post questioning in a clear way all those who still think Fed has a single chance of being considered GOAT
There are two big IFS dominating his whole career
1/What IF he had a good record against main career rivaç
2/What IF he played in a tough era instead a very weak one
Y
So many IF mark his whole career....

Click to expand...

Such a weak era, right? Because if you give a modern racquet to Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and all the other superhuman athletes of the past they would eat alive Nadal on a clay court (i can see mighty Rod handling with his flawless one hander, 3500 rpm Nadal`s forehands, standing on the baseline without breaking a sweat) or Djokovic on a hard court. Yeah i think they wouldn`t have any problem at all trying to cope with a 100+ mph forehand from the likes of Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, etc. Such a piece of cake for all the 60`s bunch. I can even see how easily peakest of peakest Hoad would serve bagels and blast away Murray on a slow hard court. The thing is that you cant compare eras because the conditions, equipment, etc are all very different. I can assure you that shotmakers like Laver, Hoad, Nastase or SV players like Edberg, Newcombe, Gonzalez, etc would have to adapt their games today, if not they wouldnt make the top 50. Was the game more enjoyable to the eye in the past?? Perhaps, I cant tell, but better or more competitive...no, hell no.

So many choices for top level play. Question to ask, can Federer really have a top peak level for one match if you may favor at least one current player over him on many surfaces even when playing his best? To me peak level means no matter what an opponent does, the inevitable loss will happen whether you hit to the forehand, backhand, use junk or anything else.

A good example of this is how Arthur Ashe described Rod Laver from his superb book "Arthur Ashe-Protrait in Motion." "When Laver goes on one of those tears, it's just ridiculous. He starts hitting the lines, and then he starts hitting the lines harder--and harder and harder. NO ONE CAN STOP HIM." The key words to me here is "No one can stop him."

Click to expand...

Yep. That's essentially what I was referring to--the opponent does not matter and what the opponent does is irrelevant.

Yep. That's essentially what I was referring to--the opponent does not matter and what the opponent does is irrelevant.

On that day, he will not lose--he is unstoppable.

Click to expand...

In my opinion there is no such thing as an unstoppable player, because there is no perfect player. Laver for example couldnt do much , even when playing his best, on a fast court against a power hitter (Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, etc) with a perfect serve day. How could he, if he isnt able to touch the ball on the return games??? Take a look to the 5 set between Nadal and Rosol at Wimbledon, i honestly dont know if Laver, Sampras, Mc Enroe, Federer or whoever you choose would have stopped Rosol that day. In a way mostly all the players at the top level can be unstoppable so for the same reason none of them really are

In my opinion there is no such thing as an unstoppable player, because there is no perfect player. Laver for example couldnt do much , even when playing his best, on a fast court against a power hitter (Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, etc) with a perfect serve day. How could he, if he isnt able to touch the ball on the return games??? Take a look to the 5 set between Nadal and Rosol at Wimbledon, i honestly dont know if Laver, Sampras, Mc Enroe, Federer or whoever you choose would have stopped Rosol that day. In a way mostly all the players at the top level can be unstoppable so for the same reason none of them really are

Click to expand...

Perhaps there are stories of the great Lew Hoad who had one of the great all time serve and also had the reflexes to move in a take big serves of the rise to put it away.

And yes big servers can be problem for anyone but big returners are also a problem for anyone. Jimmy Connors, in the 1975 Wimbledon semi on fast grass against the great serve of Roscoe Tanner was able to blast winners off Tanner's high velocity serves. Some players do have the anticipation and the reflexes to handle big serves and if they have a big serve, groundies and a volley to boot, well perhaps you may have this type of player. So who is the closest to that? A lot of it is first strike tennis but often a great return like a Connors, Laver or Djokovic can neutralize a big serve.

Perhaps there are stories of the great Lew Hoad who had one of the great all time serve and also had the reflexes to move in a take big serves of the rise to put it away.

And yes big servers can be problem for anyone but big returners are also a problem for anyone. Jimmy Connors, in the 1975 Wimbledon semi on fast grass against the great serve of Roscoe Tanner was able to blast winners off Tanner's high velocity serves. Some players do have the anticipation and the reflexes to handle big serves and if they have a big serve, groundies and a volley to boot, well perhaps you may have this type of player. So who is the closest to that? A lot of it is first strike tennis but often a great return like a Connors, Laver or Djokovic can neutralize a big serve.

Click to expand...

If there is anything close to an unstoppable player it will be a power hitter with a great serve-forehand-volley combo, never a great returner or counter puncher. You could put Laver, Djokovic, Connors, all at the same time against a player with the serve of Raonic, Eberg volleys, and Del Potro forehand, with a 1 serve percentage above 70% and even with cat reflexes they would get blown off the court. No one in tennis history (as far as i know) have been able to read serves and take the ball on the rise like Agassi did, and look what happened to him facing an on fire Sampras in 99 Wimby

In my opinion there is no such thing as an unstoppable player, because there is no perfect player. Laver for example couldnt do much , even when playing his best, on a fast court against a power hitter (Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, etc) with a perfect serve day. How could he, if he isnt able to touch the ball on the return games??? Take a look to the 5 set between Nadal and Rosol at Wimbledon, i honestly dont know if Laver, Sampras, Mc Enroe, Federer or whoever you choose would have stopped Rosol that day. In a way mostly all the players at the top level can be unstoppable so for the same reason none of them really are

Click to expand...

The statistics are very much against slowing down one of these untouchable servers (who hit ace after ace) on a perfect serve day, much less defeating him. Maybe to be unstoppable, one has to serve first and win the first game overwhelmingly. So that the opponent is immediately rattled, always playing from behind, and never able to get into his (service) rhythm and game.

In addition, it takes several things: 1)great returns, 2)great anticipation, 3)an ability to read something and thus know where the serve is going, 4)your own flawless serve game, 5)supreme confidence in your ability to figure out your opponent and weather the onslaught of first serves, and come back, 6)a rain delay to break that serving rhythm, and 7)luck that it does not continue for the whole match.

If there is anything close to an unstoppable player it will be a power hitter with a great serve-forehand-volley combo, never a great returner or counter puncher. You could put Laver, Djokovic, Connors, all at the same time against a player with the serve of Raonic, Eberg volleys, and Del Potro forehand, with a 1 serve percentage above 70% and even with cat reflexes they would get blown off the court. No one in tennis history (as far as i know) have been able to read serves and take the ball on the rise like Agassi did, and look what happened to him facing an on fire Sampras in 99 Wimby

Click to expand...

Well Agassi's return stats aren't as impressive as some by the way. And I'm writing about a player like a Hoad who had the big serve, forehand and volley plus the big return when he was on his game.

Tanner had the big serve and forehand and was blown off the court by Connors. Sometimes we can also consider that maybe a receiver may have a day where he or she is on his game. Who is to say that a big server cannot be dominated by an even better returner that day. It may not happen that often but it does happen.

Mandlikova was that type of player on the female side. Big serve, volley, forehand and backhand plus when she was on she hit on the rise winning returns. I saw her do this to Navratilova at her almost invincible best in the finals of the 1985 US Open in the first five games. Navratilova was helpless under that type of firepower. Hana's level dropped and Martina won the next five games before Mandlikova won the first set in a tiebreak. Mandlikova eventually won the match.

Well Agassi's return stats aren't as impressive as some by the way. And I'm writing about a player like a Hoad who had the big serve, forehand and volley plus the big return when he was on his game.

Tanner had the big serve and forehand and was blown off the court by Connors. Sometimes we can also consider that maybe a receiver may have a day where he or she is on his game.

Mandlikova was that type of player on the female side. Big serve, volley, forehand and backhand plus when she was on she hit on the rise winning returns. I saw her do this to Navratilova at her almost invincible best in the finals of the 1985 US Open in the first five games. Navratilova was helpless under that type of firepower. Hana's level dropped and Martina won the next five games before Mandlikova won the first set in a tiebreak.

Click to expand...

Well i dont think that even Hoad at his best would handle 130 mph serves. The main point here is that, in my view, no player is capable of winning a match unless the other player gives him a little to work with. You can say anything that you want about Hoad`s abilities but would you bet your life that he would turn out victorius (even playing his absolute best) in match with an inspired Krajicek on a fast court? The difference between a great player like Hoad and a good player like Krajicek is that the great player is able to bring the heat much more often than the good player can. The issue in sports is about consistency of high level of play and not about peak level of play. It is impossible to know who has the greatest peak of level, because i could well argue that Rosol was virtually unplayable during that famous fifth set

Well Agassi's return stats aren't as impressive as some by the way. And I'm writing about a player like a Hoad who had the big serve, forehand and volley plus the big return when he was on his game.

Tanner had the big serve and forehand and was blown off the court by Connors. Sometimes we can also consider that maybe a receiver may have a day where he or she is on his game.

Mandlikova was that type of player on the female side. Big serve, volley, forehand and backhand plus when she was on she hit on the rise winning returns. I saw her do this to Navratilova at her almost invincible best in the finals of the 1985 US Open in the first five games. Navratilova was helpless under that type of firepower. Hana's level dropped and Martina won the next five games before Mandlikova won the first set in a tiebreak.

Click to expand...

Well i dont think that even Hoad at his best would handle 130 mph serves. The main point here is that, in my view, no player is capable of winning a match unless the other player gives him a little to work with. You can say anything that you want about Hoad`s abilities but would you bet your life that he would turn out victorius (even playing his absolute best) in match with an inspired Krajicek on a fast court? The difference between a great player like Hoad and a good player like Krajicek is that the great player is able to bring the heat much more often than the good player can. The issue in sports is about consistency of high level of play and not about peak level of play. It is impossible to know who has the greatest peak of level, because i could well argue that Rosol was virtually unplayable during that famous fifth set

Well i dont think that even Hoad at his best would handle 130 mph serves. The main point here is that, in my view, no player is capable of winning a match unless the other player gives him a little to work with. You can say anything that you want about Hoad`s abilities but would you bet your life that he would turn out victorius (even playing his absolute best) in match with an inspired Krajicek on a fast court? The difference between a great player like Hoad and a good player like Krajicek is that the great player is able to bring the heat much more often than the good player can. The issue in sports is about consistency of high level of play and not about peak level of play. It is impossible to know who has the greatest peak of level, because i could well argue that Rosol was virtually unplayable during that famous fifth set

Click to expand...

Obviously we all have our opinions and I did think Rosol was fantastic in that last set but it is an interesting topic to discuss. Actually does a player in peak form really need openings. Haven't you played what you have often thought was a brilliant shot for a winner only to see the other player hit a more brilliant shot to win the point?

This has been a topic since tennis writing started and probably discussed since shortly after tennis started. In the past they often said Ellsworth Vines was the best ever when playing his best and later guys like Hoad were also discussed. I would think it is possible that some player with supreme talent and great tennis skills may have a high level greater than anyone.

Obviously we all have our opinions and I did think Rosol was fantastic in that last set but it is an interesting topic to discuss. Actually does a player in peak form really need openings. Haven't you played what you have often thought was a brilliant shot for a winner only to see the other player hit a more brilliant shot to win the point?

This has been a topic since tennis writing started and probably discussed since shortly after tennis started. In the past they often said Ellsworth Vines was the best ever when playing his best and later guys like Hoad were also discussed. I would think it is possible that some player with supreme talent and great tennis skills may have a high level greater than anyone.

Click to expand...

Yes i pretty much agree with you, there has to be some GOAT regarding peak level of play, because there has to be someone better than anybody else, but the problem here is that it is impossible to know. From the top of my head i could name you at least 10 performances by 10 different players in the last 20 years, that seemed flawless. Another problem is to choose an overall GOAT with so much variation across the very different conditions the game is held on. If peak Laver meet peak Nadal on grass we all know the result but if this two greats meet on clay it is a different story.
to be flawless and impossible to beat over the last

Yes i pretty much agree with you, there has to be some GOAT regarding peak level of play, because there has to be someone better than anybody else, but the problem here is that it is impossible to know. From the top of my head i could name you at least 10 performances by 10 different players in the last 20 years, that seemed flawless. Another problem is to choose an overall GOAT with so much variation across the very different conditions the game is held on. If peak Laver meet peak Nadal on grass we all know the result but if this two greats meet on clay it is a different story.
to be flawless and impossible to beat over the last

Imagine Hoad and Gonzales were in great shape in 63-64 and adding prime Laver and prime Rosewall you have the best quartet ever
Others:
Budge,Crawford,Perry and Vines
Tilden and 3 mousk
Kramer,Sedgman,Gonzo and Trabert in early 50
Borg,Connors,Lendl and Mac early 80
And the early 90 foursome of AA,BB,Sampras and Edberg

WOMEN
2 Williams,Sharapova and Clijsters
Seles,Graf,Hingis and Davenport
Evert,Austin,Navy,Mandlikiva early 80
Gibson,Mo,Marble and Hart in 50
And the toughest ever, in 70:
EVERT,COURT,GOOLAGONG,BJK

Click to expand...

kiki, In the 1964 BBC2 tournament we did have the four giants when Hoad d. Rosewall 8-1 and Gonzalez beat Laver. In the final Pancho won even though he lost the first set by 0-6...

Best of three sets only. A major step below Wembley that year. Exhibition level here.

Click to expand...

Dan, I had been hoping that we now can discuss on a higher level than before and that you give up to write very strange posts. But I must learn that you again come with that "exhibition" nonsense...

BBC 2 in 1964 was a hard fought top tournament with a worthy winner, Gonzalez. British Lawn Tennis has brought an article on that event. Best of three sets only? Many big tournaments of the pros were best of three, f. i. MSG, PSW... To be correct: MOST pro tournaments were best of three.

Such a weak era, right? Because if you give a modern racquet to Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and all the other superhuman athletes of the past they would eat alive Nadal on a clay court (i can see mighty Rod handling with his flawless one hander, 3500 rpm Nadal`s forehands, standing on the baseline without breaking a sweat) or Djokovic on a hard court. Yeah i think they wouldn`t have any problem at all trying to cope with a 100+ mph forehand from the likes of Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, etc. Such a piece of cake for all the 60`s bunch. I can even see how easily peakest of peakest Hoad would serve bagels and blast away Murray on a slow hard court. The thing is that you cant compare eras because the conditions, equipment, etc are all very different. I can assure you that shotmakers like Laver, Hoad, Nastase or SV players like Edberg, Newcombe, Gonzalez, etc would have to adapt their games today, if not they wouldnt make the top 50. Was the game more enjoyable to the eye in the past?? Perhaps, I cant tell, but better or more competitive...no, hell no.

Click to expand...

All those mighty forehands added have. ..0 majors,live with the fact current era is non competitive

Well Agassi's return stats aren't as impressive as some by the way. And I'm writing about a player like a Hoad who had the big serve, forehand and volley plus the big return when he was on his game.

Tanner had the big serve and forehand and was blown off the court by Connors. Sometimes we can also consider that maybe a receiver may have a day where he or she is on his game. Who is to say that a big server cannot be dominated by an even better returner that day. It may not happen that often but it does happen.

Mandlikova was that type of player on the female side. Big serve, volley, forehand and backhand plus when she was on she hit on the rise winning returns. I saw her do this to Navratilova at her almost invincible best in the finals of the 1985 US Open in the first five games. Navratilova was helpless under that type of firepower. Hana's level dropped and Martina won the next five games before Mandlikova won the first set in a tiebreak. Mandlikova eventually won the match.

Such a weak era, right? Because if you give a modern racquet to Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and all the other superhuman athletes of the past they would eat alive Nadal on a clay court (i can see mighty Rod handling with his flawless one hander, 3500 rpm Nadal`s forehands, standing on the baseline without breaking a sweat) or Djokovic on a hard court. Yeah i think they wouldn`t have any problem at all trying to cope with a 100+ mph forehand from the likes of Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, etc. Such a piece of cake for all the 60`s bunch. I can even see how easily peakest of peakest Hoad would serve bagels and blast away Murray on a slow hard court. The thing is that you cant compare eras because the conditions, equipment, etc are all very different. I can assure you that shotmakers like Laver, Hoad, Nastase or SV players like Edberg, Newcombe, Gonzalez, etc would have to adapt their games today, if not they wouldnt make the top 50. Was the game more enjoyable to the eye in the past?? Perhaps, I cant tell, but better or more competitive...no, hell no.

Click to expand...

Just think about the NBA in the 60s. Despite having a small squad but how many players could make the NBA today? Very few. It's the same for tennis, there's not a whole lot of players in the 60s that can make the atp tour since the standard is a lot higher.

kiki, In the 1964 BBC2 tournament we did have the four giants when Hoad d. Rosewall 8-1 and Gonzalez beat Laver. In the final Pancho won even though he lost the first set by 0-6...

Click to expand...

Those 4 in a fast to medium supreme carpet is the closest tennis can get to perfection.Imagime the WCT finals in 63 or 64 with those 4 in top form...it should be held at Louvre or Rome Colosseo instead of Dallas

Just think about the NBA in the 60s. Despite having a small squad but how many players could make the NBA today? Very few. It's the same for tennis, there's not a whole lot of players in the 60s that can make the atp tour since the standard is a lot higher.

Click to expand...

Red Auerbach thought a Dream Team of top players of the 1960's would do quite well against the 1992 Dream Team if memory serves.

The height of the average NBA player in 1970 was 6'6. In the year 2012 it is 6'7".

Wow, one inch.

I think in the year 1986 and 1999 it was 6'7.5 inches. Guess the NBA is going backwards. Players have shrunk.

Dan, I had been hoping that we now can discuss on a higher level than before and that you give up to write very strange posts. But I must learn that you again come with that "exhibition" nonsense...

BBC 2 in 1964 was a hard fought top tournament with a worthy winner, Gonzalez. British Lawn Tennis has brought an article on that event. Best of three sets only? Many big tournaments of the pros were best of three, f. i. MSG, PSW... To be correct: MOST pro tournaments were best of three.

Click to expand...

Of course, many tournaments were best-of-three sets, pro and amateur. But the majors usually had some best-of-five component.
Examples of majors? Let's see...how about Forest Hills T of C in the late fifties, Kooyong in late fifties and early sixties, Roland Garros at the same time, all predominantly best-of-five in the later stages.

Red Auerbach thought a Dream Team of top players of the 1960's would do quite well against the 1992 Dream Team if memory serves.

The height of the average NBA player in 1970 was 6'6. In the year 2012 it is 6'7".

Wow, one inch.

I think in the year 1986 and 1999 it was 6'7.5 inches. Guess the NBA is going backwards. Players have shrunk.

Click to expand...

Red is biased toward the 60s. I've heard some of his interviews, one of them was when he claimed he was better than Phil Jackson as a coach because he inherited all the star players. That contradict him because he had the best players in the 60s. He said Russell was better than Chamberlain and would pick Russell as center again if he had to coach again. Of course he had to say Russell.

Players in the 60s were mostly white players, and there's no doubt that black basketball players are better than white players. The 1 inch difference doesn't really matter if a player is more athletic, jump higher, stronger, more talented, etc. I seriously doubt if the best players in the 60s competing in the Olympic today and return home with a Gold, because so many nations have improved over the decades.

Red is biased toward the 60s. I've heard some of his interviews, one of them was when he claimed he was better than Phil Jackson as a coach because he inherited all the star players. That contradict him because he had the best players in the 60s. He said Russell was better than Chamberlain and would pick Russell as center again if he had to coach again. Of course he had to say Russell.

Players in the 60s were mostly white players, and there's no doubt that black basketball players are better than white players. The 1 inch difference doesn't really matter if a player is more athletic, jump higher, stronger, more talented, etc. I seriously doubt if the best players in the 60s competing in the Olympic today and return home with a Gold, because so many nations have improved over the decades.

And I'm talking about 1970 with Oscar, Baylor, Chamberlain, Jabbar, Frazier, Unseld, Monroe, Bing, Reed, Luke Jackson, Hal Greer, Connie Hawkins among the numerous great African American players. You also had West, Lucas, Cummingham, Goodrich. It was a great league. The athletes were great. So I guess a team of Jabbar, West, Robertson, Frazier, Lucas, Debusschere, Reed, Baylor, Unseld, Monroe, Gus Johnson wouldn't do well according to you. To quote John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious"

Oh yes I would like to point out it was a smaller league so having 20 great players is the equivalent of a much higher number now. I don't see anyone coming close to Jabbar or Chamberlain today. Lebron is great but so was Oscar.

Do some research on the league on that point. Red Auerbach was a great talent evaluator and I think he knows the NBA and how to form a team far better than perhaps anyone in history. He said the league in the 1960's with its version of the Dream Team would be very competitive with the 1992 team. Does that mean anything to you?

You're too rigid in your theory about past versus present. The universe is not set in stone.